Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WebSlave
So, Seamus, are you suggesting that everyone is incapable of change? Unable to change themselves for the better? Lacking the ability to see the errors of their ways and perhaps become a better person upon reflection of their previous character?
Yes, I know this is a large fault in my personality. I tend to forgive and forget even the most damaging behavior and actions of members on this board. Yes, there are members allowed back on here who have been abusive to the extreme to not only me, but other members here. And yes, like a stupe, I hope for the best from them the next time around. It's a flaw and I know it, but still, there it is. I just can't maintain a grudge for much longer than after a good night's sleep.
So are you saying that is wrong of me to have this hope? Wrong to think that maybe perhaps people can change for the better? Wrong for me to give them the chance to PROVE themselves?
If you were in my shoes, you would make all bans permanent with no possible parole? Once a bad guy is always a bad guy in your eyes? If so, perhaps you have a flaw yourself that needs to be dealt with.
Quite honestly, I have seen some members change just from the fact that they took on the responsibility of becoming a WS mod and suddenly got hit with the fact that it really put them in the spotlight. It made them MORE of a target as their actions came under closer scrutiny by everyone. In effect, they BECAME more responsible rather than remaining the same or becoming less. Not all, and certainly not all in the future, neither, but I am affording people the chance to make a change if they can, not only to this site, but themselves as well. The authority DEFINITELY carries a huge helping of responsibility. As such, they will be judged solely as being fit for the position in how they act in that position. Nothing more, nothing less.
That is just the way it is going to be. I am willing to take the chance on this working.
|
How many changed and how many burned you more than once?
I'm not sure if you're not understanding why people are objecting to some of the individuals who are allowed a buy in, or if you don't care, or if this is just the latest depressed self destructive point of stubborn contention that you're going down in flames over... and as such, people have tried to explain it, hoping it was the first one.
Your mods have told you they simply do not want to share any specific demographic or association with hardcore criminal scumbags.
Your members have told you they don't like the direction or judgement displayed in letting liars and thieves represent the site.
You drew a distinction, and I think it's a valid one, between "bad people" and those who simply have some personal issues and explained fully, repeatedly, how the system would take care of anyone who abuses it directly. Mostly anyway, some answers have not been forthcoming about some details. Possibly because you haven't decided yet or, the more pessimistic are probably thinking it's because you have decided, and know the answers won't be well recieved.
If a moderator who bought in generates 300 points and is suspended, when they pay their fine, are they still a moderator?
If they are not a moderator, are they allowed to repay to replay?
At times in the past, the few times a supermod decided that they acted in error or overreacted or read something the wrong way- warning points that they issued which in hindsight should not have been were retracted. Haven't seen that happen lately, even in the few cases of flagrant and wanton abuse which happened. Sure, the mod responsible got hit with points of their own, but it doesn't help the person who was inappropriately hit; does it? Yeah, yeah- the ban limit is real high but hey... drops in a bucket eventually add up.
You are aware of a certain subsection of the member base who are, ultimately, detractors not of an idea or a proposition or a change in the rules- but of the site, of your efforts. Every so often you seem hell bent on destruction and you find a situation and you inflame it... and every time that happens, the fallout is a little worse, the people willing to overlook it or excuse it are a few less and a few more people have been shoved aside or told that they're not wanted and their contributions and efforts aren't valued. And every time, it gives ammo to the
very few people who genuinely do want to see the site go down and fail (rather than an idea be repealed or tweaked).
It's hard to look at the way you're willing to let some of these people represent your site, your efforts, all the positive results of the communal efforts. It's tough to come to any conclusion other than the inevitable "He seems to be willing to let anyone do anything if they pay up, no matter who they are or what they have done." and it gets tougher to think any differently when you set up systems which would let you keep taking that cash when those same people go and actively damage the thing you brought forth.
I'm probably going to continue to rehash what I feel is important- that people who have *proven* themselves incapable of rational and unbiased conduct, who have proven time and time again that they are criminals and scumbags should not be allowed the
privilege of representing your interests. The banned list seems like a sort of final line, a group of people who have been so vile in their behavior that they had to be removed from the site. There are a lot of people who are distasteful that never managed to force that extreme solution- it's the worst of the worst when it comes to conduct.
If there's an individual or three... where miscommunication or personal conflict weighed more heavily on their ban and, retrospectively they, as an exception, are people you feel have either redeemed themselves or the inherent cause of the banning has passed or was a fluke- make an exception for them. I'm not sure if pardoning the many for the sake of the few makes much sense though. You, Rich, better than anyone else will have a mental catalogue of the behaviors that led to bannings and I am sure you can come up with some examples of redeemed individuals, or those worthy of honest forgiveness because they had honest regrets about whatever situation led to that conclusion... but are they the exception, or are they the rule?
I keep saying it 'cause... I think it's important. I care, turly and genuinely about the outcome of all this, as much as I am a pessimistic little sod who tends to examine everything and focus on the potential bad... I only get this involved and this active when I can't put it down because it matters. Eventually, you'll get frustrated with me and give me my very own "Shut up or there will be consequences" message, and I'll go to my corner and keep mumbling to myself about that big important truth I think I see. Hopefully before it hits that point though, I can manage to convey the reasons I am thinking the way I am and the value of my opinion. My standard course of just attacking the obvious flaws and being critical hasn't gotten me too far in the past; this time I believe I have come up with a few potential solutions (one rejected and abandoned 'cause the reason for rejection was solid. One I am not giving up on quite yet) trying the constructive approach. People have raved about how much better it is than my normal list of why something is wrong or bad or stupid. We'll see if they're right. Maybe my points will prove worth listening to and my suggestion worth a try. Maybe I'll be told to shut up. Coin toss at this point.